Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful context: it explicitly includes hard assets and states it matches the dashboard calculation, clarifying the exact calculation scope. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: the primary action, the scope inclusion, and the return structure. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, no redundant phrasing, and easily scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It defines what the tool does, what is included, and what the response will contain. Combined with the rich annotations, an agent can invoke it correctly without further clarification.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no burden. The description explains what the return value contains (assets, liabilities, hard assets, totals), which is helpful given there is no output schema. This satisfies the baseline for a parameterless tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool calculates the user's current net worth, specifies it includes financial accounts and hard assets, and explicitly ties it to the web UI dashboard calculation. This differentiates it from siblings like get_net_worth_history (historical) and get_balance_sheet (likely a broader or different financial statement).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by scoping the calculation to match the web UI dashboard, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_net_worth_history or get_balance_sheet. There is no direct 'use this when' or 'instead of' guidance, leaving the agent to infer from the scope described.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.